Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

Well it wasn't a fluke but.... other than the .336 he hit in 1993, the highest he'd hit in his career before 2002 was .312. Then in 2002, when the walks really started to pile up, he hit .370. Then .341. Then .362.

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well it wasn't a fluke but.... other than the .336 he hit in 1993, the highest he'd hit in his career before 2002 was .312. Then in 2002, when the roids really started to pile up, he hit .370. Then .341. Then .362.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots more going on in his career then than walks.

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

Huh?

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

see bolded text.

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

haha.... fair enough. But my only point I was trying to make was that when you're physically able to sit and wait on pitches (roids or not), and you can lay off pitches that are outside of the zone and walk a lot, it's less difficult to maintain a high batting average.

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well wasn't one of the main reasons Bonds's average was so high precisely because of the fact he walked 200 times?

[/ QUOTE ]

Average has nothing to do with the Bonds triple crown equasion. He couldn't win because it's impssible to lead the league in RBI when you are walked virtually every time there is an RBI opportunity. Losing those AB's doesn't help his average nearly as much (if at all) as it hurts his ability to hit HR's and knock in runs.

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd ballpark it at a 60% chance that it does happen in 20 years. Bonds would have won at least one if he hadn't been walked 200 times or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take even money that it doesn't.

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well wasn't one of the main reasons Bonds's average was so high precisely because of the fact he walked 200 times?

[/ QUOTE ]

Average has nothing to do with the Bonds triple crown equasion. He couldn't win because it's impssible to lead the league in RBI when you are walked virtually every time there is an RBI opportunity. Losing those AB's doesn't help his average nearly as much (if at all) as it hurts his ability to hit HR's and knock in runs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you said. But I wasn't talking about his HR/RBI totals at all. I was just responding to Clark's contention that he would have won it if he hadn't been walked 200 times. His average was high because of the walks. If he didn't walk as much, his HR/RBI totals would surely have increased, at the expense of some batting average points.

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well wasn't one of the main reasons Bonds's average was so high precisely because of the fact he walked 200 times?

[/ QUOTE ]

Average has nothing to do with the Bonds triple crown equasion. He couldn't win because it's impssible to lead the league in RBI when you are walked virtually every time there is an RBI opportunity. Losing those AB's doesn't help his average nearly as much (if at all) as it hurts his ability to hit HR's and knock in runs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you said. But I wasn't talking about his HR/RBI totals at all. I was just responding to Clark's contention that he would have won it if he hadn't been walked 200 times. His average was high because of the walks. If he didn't walk as much, his HR/RBI totals would surely have increased, at the expense of some batting average points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not enough BA points to cost him the crown that year. He had a massive BA lead and a miniscule HR RBI deficit.

Re: Baseball Triple Crown Odds question.....
 

Hmm, I disagree.... 3 homers behind Sosa and 18 RBI behind Berkman (and also behind 4 others) isn't exactly miniscule.... but yea, his 30+ point lead in batting average was huge.